Pelemis and Peric: Reasons for custody

David Schwendiman, Prosecutor at the trial of Momir Pelemis and Slavko Peric, asked for extension of custody in the case of the two indictees, claiming that there was a “danger that he may seek to escape, influence witnesses or accomplices”, also adding that their release would “disturb public order and peace of returnees and residents in Zvornik area”.

The Defence of the two indictees objected the proposal, calling it “generalised and not concrete”, suggesting to the Court to allow their clients to defend themselves while at liberty, while banning them from leaving their place of residence.

The Court will render its decision at a later stage.

Momir Pelemis and Slavko Peric have been held in custody since November 5 this year, when they were arrested by the State Investigation and Protection Agency, SIPA. On December 1, the State Court confirmed the indictment charging them with genocide in the Srebrenica area in July 1995.

The Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina charges Pelemis, as deputy commander and chief of staffs of the First Battalion with the Zvornik Brigade of the Republika Srpska Army, VRS, and Peric, as assistant commander for security of the same Brigade, with having “planned, ordered and supported” the murder of detained Srebrenica residents, who were brought to “Kula” school in Pilica, in Zvornik municipality.

Miodrag Stojanovic, Peric’s Defence attorney, said that his client was “not a man who would escape”, because, since 2003 he “has voluntarily reported to the Hague investigators, State Prosecution and SIPA members several times”.

“I do not have any place to escape to. I am an innocent man. I was 17 kilometres away from the place where the crimes, charged upon me, were committed. I have never been convicted,” Pelemis said concerning the custody extension motion.

Indictee Peric told the Court that he was “a peaceful and dignified man”, objecting the custody extension, because he “has got a family to support”.

“In this case the reasons for custody are much stronger than the family reasons, mentioned by the indictees,” Prosecutor Schwendiman said, adding that some less severe prohibiting measures would be “insufficient.”